> Everybody talks about how STM removes locking. This is bollocks.
Really? I think there's a lot of talk about how STM is bollocks. While I haven't read the literature (as) extensively (as you seem to have), I've yet to see any rationale for this. More specific pointers than just a ream of research paper titles would be great.
> This is because pure STM requires the LL/SC
I'm sorry, but isn't this SOFTWARE transactional memory we're talking about? What's stopping the run-time system from abstracting away the underlying hardware?
> Every existing STM library actually uses locks internally. Period.
> Please, stop the cargo cult hyperbole. The only real STM implementations
> are on paper, or maybe in a lab w/ a custom ASIC.
While I've only made toy implementations using it, Haskell's STM library seems awfully real to me. I'm not aware of any locking, but I could be misunderstanding how it works, of course.
Further down, you go on to claim:
> Fact is, real STM does not exist.
> Everything else can deadlock, and can livelock
While I love unsubstianted claims as much as the next guy, your opinions would be more enlightening if you provide actual example code that demonstrates this.